The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Extreme geomagnetic storms: Probabilistic forecasts and their uncertainties
Abstract
Abstract Extreme space weather events are low‐frequency, high‐risk phenomena. Estimating their rates of occurrence, as well as their associated uncertainties, is difficult. In this study, we derive statistical estimates and uncertainties for the occurrence rate of an extreme geomagnetic storm on the scale of the Carrington event (or worse) occurring within the next decade. We model the distribution of events as either a power law or lognormal distribution and use (1) Kolmogorov‐Smirnov statistic to estimate goodness of fit, (2) bootstrapping to quantify the uncertainty in the estimates, and (3) likelihood ratio tests to assess whether one distribution is preferred over another. Our best estimate for the probability of another extreme geomagnetic event comparable to the Carrington event occurring within the next 10 years is 10.3% 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.9,18.7] for a power law distribution but only 3.0% 95% CI [0.6,9.0] for a lognormal distribution. However, our results depend crucially on (1) how we define an extreme event, (2) the statistical model used to describe how the events are distributed in intensity, (3) the techniques used to infer the model parameters, and (4) the data and duration used for the analysis. We test a major assumption that the data represent time stationary processes and discuss the implications. If the current trends persist, suggesting that we are entering a period of lower activity, our forecasts may represent upper limits rather than best estimates.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Extreme solar events are difficult to accurately and timely forecast. They are essentially random events 7 which provide little forewarning.”
From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Riley and Love, 2017
In the citing paper
“Estimates for a large-scale space weather event over the next decade or so range from 0.46% (Moriña et al., 2019) to 20.3% (Riley and Love, 2017).”
From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Riley and Love, 2017
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- 10.1063/1.873681 · DOI
- 10.1002/swe.20097 · DOI
- Baker D. N., 2008, Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts
- 10.1029/96JA03759 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1364-6826(02)00128-1 · DOI
- Cannon P., 2013, Extreme Space Weather: Impacts on Engineered Systems and Infrastructure
- 10.1093/mnras/20.1.13 · DOI
- 10.1137/070710111 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1214/12-AOAS614 · DOI
- 10.1029/JZ064i012p02239 · DOI
- 10.1201/9780429246593 · DOI · Paper page
- Field E. K.Milner and2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities(2008) Forecasting California's earthquakes—What can we expect in the next 30 years? USGS Fact Sheet 2008–3027 U.S. Geol. Surv. California. · DOI
- 10.1029/93JA02867 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_327 · DOI
- 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/272 · DOI
- 10.1017/9781139878296 · DOI
- 10.1029/1999JA000319 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1743921305000074 · DOI
- Liu Y. D., 2014, Observations of an Axtreme Storm in Interplanetary Space Caused by Successive Coronal Mass Ejections, 3481
- 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/937 · DOI
- 10.1029/2012GL051431 · DOI
- 10.1002/2015GL064842 · DOI
- 10.1029/2000JA000237 · DOI
- 10.1080/00107510500052444 · DOI
- Riley P., 2012, On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events, The Int. J. Res. Appl., 10, S02012
- Riley P., 2000, The Sun and Space Weather, 24th Meeting of the IAU, Joint Discussion
- 10.1086/505383 · DOI
- 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/57 · DOI
- 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/105 · DOI
- 10.1109/PROC.1967.5493 · DOI
- 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/38 · DOI
- 10.1029/JZ071i013p03125 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.asr.2005.02.102 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.05.012 · DOI
- 10.2307/1912557 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk
Tang, A., & Kemp, L. (2021) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.720312 · Cited by 58
“7There is unresolved discussion as to whether extreme space weather events follow a power law or lognormal distribution (Riley and Love, 2017; Kataoka, 2020).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Riley, P., & Love, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Predictive Science (United States) (US)
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Riley, Pete
- Venue
- Space Weather
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-64
- ISSN
- 1542-7390 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2562647817
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 11
- FWCI
- 7.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Space Weather (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- NSF's Frontiers in Earth System Dynamics (FESD)
- NASA's Living with a Star (LWS) program
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Ionosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
- Keywords
- extreme geomagnetic storms, Carrington event, space weather forecasting, power-law distribution, lognormal distribution, forecast uncertainty, bootstrapping, likelihood ratio test
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review